Ex Parte Hofmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13001464 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/001,464 05/20/2011 Dieter Hofmann 5029-746PUS-307323.000 1765
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIETER HOFMANN and PETER STEINMILL
Appeal 2016-004957
Application 13/001,464
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THU A. DANG, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 13—16 and 18—25, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a radio
network. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 13 is exemplary:
Appeal 2016-004957
Application 13/001,464
13. A communication method for a radio network, having at
least two subscribers, wherein a radio channel being used in
both directions between the subscribers, always only
successively in one direction and then in another direction, and
not simultaneously in both directions, the method comprising:
stipulating respective transmission times m a time pattern
for the subscribers at which transmission times one of the
subscribers is permitted to send another of the subscribers a
user message including vehicle diagnostic data, a start of each
user message having an embedded identification signal, or the
embedded identification signal being a prefix of the user
message including the vehicle diagnostic data; and
sending, by the one of the subscribers, the user message
including the vehicle diagnostic data and the embedded
identification signal for receipt by the another subscriber to
notify the another subscriber of the busy condition of the radio
channel;
wherein the respective transmission times stipulated for
the one of the subscribers for the transmission of the user
message are in sync with the transmission times stipulated for
the another subscriber for the transmission of the user message.
References and Rejections
Claims 13—16 and 18—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stanwood (US 7,197,022 B2, Mar. 27, 2007) and
Reinold (US 7,415,508 B2, Aug. 19, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
2
Appeal 2016-004957
Application 13/001,464
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 13.
Appellants contend Stanwood and Reinold do not collectively teach
“wherein the respective transmission times stipulated for the one of the
subscribers for the transmission of the user message are in sync with the
transmission times stipulated for the another subscriber for the transmission
of the user message,” as recited in claim 13. See App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—
5. In particular, Appellants assert the cited portions of Stanwood do not
teach the disputed claim limitation, and Reinold fails to cure the deficiency
of Stanwood. See App. Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—5.
The Examiner cites the collectively teachings of Stanwood and
Reinold, and especially the teachings of Reinold for the disputed claim
limitation. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 19—20. For example, the Examiner
cites excerpts from Reinold’s columns 5 and 6 for teaching simultaneous
communications. See Ans. 19. Appellants merely assert—without
analyzing the cited Reinold portions or the Examiner’s findings—that
“Reinold fails to teach or suggest anything whatsoever with respect to [the
disputed claim limitation].” App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ general
assertion is unpersuasive of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2016-004957
Application 13/001,464
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”);
see also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It
is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”).
Further, Appellants’ assertion that “Reinold was cited merely to
provide a teaching of embedded identification signals” (App. Br. 4; Reply
Br. 5)—not the disputed claim limitation—contradicts the record. See Final
Act. 3^4; Ans. 19—20.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.2 We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 14—16 and 18—25,
which Appellants do not argue with separate substantive contentions.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13—16 and 18—25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 The Examiner cumulatively finds Stanwood teaches the disputed claim
limitation. See Final Act. 3. That cumulative finding is unnecessary
because as discussed above, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection based on the collective teachings of Stanwood and
Reinold.
4